Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the read returns two pieces of business information (acceptance and surcharge), which is useful, but it says nothing about behavior on unavailable dates or invalid input.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One compact sentence that front-loads the two questions the tool answers, with no filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete: it tells the agent what information comes back. Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior on closed dates or when the surcharge result should feed into a quoting tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single date parameter already documents both accepted formats (ГГГГ-ММ-ДД or ДД.ММ.ГГГГ). The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the schema carries the load and the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear, specific purpose: it checks whether an order can be accepted for a given date and whether an urgency surcharge applies. It reveals what the tool returns (availability + surcharge), which goes beyond the name, though it never names a sibling or clarifies the boundaries with tools like delivery_quote or estimate_cake.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the many quoting/booking siblings (delivery_quote, estimate_cake, quote_gingerbread, book_tasting). The agent must infer that this is a pre-check step, with no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.